Thursday, April 4, 2019

There's no reason why free speech can't be civil

(First published in the Manawatu Standard, the Nelson Mail and on Stuff.co.nz., April 3.)

Some good has come out of the awful events in Christchurch
on March 15.

Ordinary New Zealanders came together in an overwhelming
display of support for the victims and their families – confirming that,
contrary to inflammatory statements by a couple of Green Party politicians,
ours is fundamentally a decent society. That was a big plus.

In the wake of the shootings there was also a general
recognition that ethnic minorities are an integral part of the New Zealand
community; that they have a right to be here and to follow their chosen faiths
without hindrance, even when some aspects of those faiths may be at odds with
the views of the liberal, secular mainstream. Another plus.

A further consequence of the Christchurch shootings was that
many of us became more conscious of the ways in which we unthinkingly
perpetuate racial stereotypes – for example, by making jokes about the supposed
characteristics of ethnic minorities. Even when no malice is intended, jokes
about race can have the effect of magnifying potentially negative perceptions
of “otherness”.

These are all changes for the better, but March 15 brought
about another significant outcome that can only be positive.

As New Zealand recoiled in shock and anguish at the violent
deaths of 50 innocent people, attention focused on the role of so-called social
media in promoting hatred and division.

Not for the first time, Facebook – the platform used by the
Christchurch shooter to live-stream his monstrous act – was squarely in the
frame. But whereas Mark Zuckerberg’s Internet behemoth has sometimes given the
impression of being largely indifferent to the harm it causes, and so powerful
as to be virtually untouchable, this time it was shamed into taking at least
token action.

Whether Facebook’s newly announced ban on content promoting
“white nationalism and separatism” will be effectively enforced remains to be
seen. Many commentators are sceptical – understandably so, given Facebook’s
record.

But in the meantime, there have been important changes much
closer to home. New Zealand’s biggest digital news platform, Stuff, and
the long-established Kiwiblog have
both announced long-overdue changes to their comments policies. It’s no
coincidence that this happened so soon after the Christchurch atrocities, which
can at least partly be blamed on the proliferation of hateful online rhetoric.

Comment sections, for those unfamiliar with them, are spaces
where readers can express their own thoughts on whatever has been posted
online.

In theory, comments are moderated – that is to say, someone
is supposed to check them to ensure they’re not defamatory or offensive. But
even on a mainstream site like Stuff, which says it rejects roughly
one-third of the comments submitted, the comments section is too often a toxic
cesspit.

Kiwiblog, the
website of conservative political pundit David Farrar, is even worse. The
primary content, most of it written by Farrar himself, is usually reasoned and
restrained, as you’d expect of someone who is naturally personable and polite. The
Kiwiblog comments section, however, can be a fetid swamp.

I must declare an interest here, because I’ve been the
target of savage attacks on both Stuff
and Kiwiblog – as I am on other
anti-social media platforms such as Twitter
and Reddit, where I’ve been abused
using language so inventive that it almost commands my admiration.

Someone on Reddit
recently called me a “motherf**king odious s**tgibbon”, which even I have to
admit has a certain vigorous ring to it.

The common denominator here is anonymity. As long as people
are allowed to hide behind pseudonyms, as the most rancid commenters do, then
they feel emboldened to say whatever they like.

Sociologists call it disinhibition – a lack of restraint and
a disregard for social convention. It happens because these commenters feel
safe behind their online identities with their idiotic cryptic names.

Who knows what these fearless keyboard warriors would be
like if they had to identify themselves? It wouldn’t surprise me if they were
as meek as lambs.

Newspapers learned decades ago that the quality and tone of
letters to the editor improved overnight once writers were required to provide
a name and address. It’s a great shame Stuff didn’t adopt a similar policy
online, but I guess it reasoned that people would be less likely to post
comments if they had to name themselves.

Now the site has made changes aimed at cutting out “comment
pollution” and Kiwiblog has done much
the same. Farrar has written an admirable exposition of what’s acceptable,
what’s not, and why.

Eyebrows will be raised at Stuff's decision to place certain hot-button issues - such as 1080, immigration and fluoride - off-limits to commenters altogether, but otherwise both sites' moves should be welcomed. After all, there's no reason why free speech shouldn't be exercised in a civil and respectful way.

3 comments:

Civil is good. Censorship not so much. Stuff in particular is very close to becoming an ideological ghetto where only approved opinions may be expressed. Good luck with that strategy.

In the rush to protect the innocent following the terrible events in Christchurch, I’m concerned that we are about to re-introduce religious blasphemy laws under the guise of hate speech legislation. No religion or ideology should be above critique, criticism or even ridicule. We have a long tradition in the west of robust engagement on these matters, and we are better off because of it.

I’m pleased to see your support for the Free Speech Coalition, whose existence simply reflects how far we have moved as a culture from our foundations. Who would have believed only a few short years ago that our liberties would be so threatened as to require their services.

Karl, I am all for free speech and for that reason I must disagree with some of your comments. In particular the suggestion that the open way Kiwiblog operated excluded the chance to discuss things in a civil and respectful way.

Free speech means just that and Kiwiblog (I am an ex-commenter of that blog) allowed for robust conversation with minimal control.

Every commenter on the blog knew, and understood, that there would be comments they did not like and they were free to read or ignore those.

Commenters soon came to know who they wanted to read and who they could scroll past.

It worked - surprisingly.

Now it doesn't!

Karl, I am also a regular reader of your your blog, appreciate it and respect the difference.

I hope once the hysteria over the mad Ocker dies down a new blog similar to the old Kiwiblog surfaces enabling once more open, honest and politically incorrect discourse.

In the mean time one must simply silently suffer being part of the land of the wrong white crowd.

Civility in both spoken and written word is a given – best achieved if there has been no alcohol consumed. Agree that Facebook, Twitter, Kiwiblog and sometimes Stuff’s comments section can become wastelands of ad-hominem attacks - devoid of human respect or logical discourse. However, even before the recent changes to policy, the Stuff comments section seemed to be censored to keep certain political views dumbed down. That process is complete now. I also agree there is a link between commentators’ anonymity and disinhibition. However, it is absolutism to say that using pseudonyms leads directly to bad online behaviour. Remaining anonymous and indulging in vitriolic abuse are two separate and distinct choices a commentator makes. There is only a partial correlation between them. Commentators use pseudonyms for a variety of reasons. Some have nefarious intent while others just don’t want to run the risk of receiving unsolicited abuse outside of the forums they post on.

About Me

I am a freelance journalist and columnist living in the Wairarapa region of New Zealand. In the presence of Greenies I like to boast that I walk to work each day - I've paced it out and it's about 15 metres. I write about all sorts of stuff: politics, the media, music, wine, films, cycling and anything else that piques my interest - even sport, though I admit I don't have the intuitive understanding of sport that most New Zealand males absorb as if by osmosis. I'm a former musician (bass and guitar) with a lifelong love of music that led me to write my book 'A Road Tour of American Song Titles: From Mendocino to Memphis', published by Bateman NZ in July 2016. I've been in journalism for more than 40 years and like many journalists I know a little bit about a lot of things and probably not enough about anything. I have never won any journalism awards.